DOCSLIB.ORG

Loss of Rail Competition As an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern Or Political Bogeyman Mark D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loss of Rail Competition As an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern Or Political Bogeyman Mark D Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 1986 Loss of Rail Competition as an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern or Political Bogeyman Mark D. Perreault Nancy S. Fleischman Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Mark D. Perreault & Nancy S. Fleischman, Loss of Rail Competition as an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern or Political Bogeyman, 34 Clev. St. L. Rev. 413 (1985-1986) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOSS OF RAIL COMPETITION AS AN ISSUE IN THE PROPOSED SALE OF CONRAIL TO NORFOLK SOUTHERN: VALID CONCERN OR POLITICAL BOGEYMAN? MARK D. PERREAULT* NANCY S. FLEISCHMAN** 1. INTRODUCTION ......... ..................................... 414 II. PRESERVATION OF RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AS A CONSIDERATION IN RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS ............................... 414 A . Prior to 1920 ................................. 414 B . 1920 - 1940 .................................. 418 C. 1940 - 1980 .................................. 421 D . 1980 - Present ................................ 425 Ill. PRESERVATION OF RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AS A CONSIDERATION IN THE FORMATION OF CONRAIL AND SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION TO SELL CONRAIL ........ ........................................ 428 A. 1970's Congressional Response to the Penn Central and Other Railroad Bankruptcies ..................... 428 B. Foundation of Initial CongressionalPolicy ........... 429 C. Implementing the Policy ......................... 432 D. The Decision to Sell Conrail...................... 433 IV. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION'S DECISION TO SELL CONRAIL TO NORFOLK SOUTHERN AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ............... 433 A. The Bidding Process and Selection of Norfolk Southern. 433 B. Department of Justice Evaluation of Norfolk Southern- Conrail Consolidation........................... 435 V. A VIEWPOINT ON RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AND THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN-CONRAIL AFFILIATION ..... ........................ 436 A. DOJ Underestimated the Pervasiveness of Intermodal Competition in Conrail'sMarkets .................. 436 B. DOJ Placed Emphasis Unprecedented in Recent His- tory on PreservingRail-Rail Competition in the Divesti- tures ........................................ 437 C. DOJ's Attention to Rail-Rail Competition Goes Far Be- yond What is Required Under TransportationLaw or the National TransportationPolicy ................... 439 * Assistant General Solicitor, Norfolk Southern Corporation. ** General Attorney, Norfolk Southern Corporation. Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1986 1 CLEVELAND STATE LA W REVIEW [Vol. 34:413 I. INTRODUCTION The Department of Transportation's (DOT) plan to return Consoli- dated Rail Corporation (Conrail) to the private sector by selling the federal government's controlling interest to Norfolk Southern Corpora- tion (Norfolk Southern) has, not surprisingly, been the subject of a spirited debate in the transportation and political community since its announcement in February, 1985. Detractors have voiced concerns about loss of jobs, quality of service, rates, adequacy of the price, tax benefits, effects on other railroads, ports, communities, and even minority ven- dors.1 Perhaps the most virulent yet poorly understood criticism has been that Norfolk Southern's acquisition of Conrail would adversely affect competition. Critics have said that the sale proposal "runs directly contrary to [antitrust] policy goals" and would have a serious, adverse effect on competition. 2 The proposal is a "flagrant violation of antitrust laws and would create an unconscionable monopoly."3 [T]he proposed sale of Conrail to the Norfolk Southern violates every principle of good transportation policy and destroys the competitive framework which is the key to the future health of our railroad system .... [The proposal] would not survive any rational scrutiny under antitrust concepts that have governed 4 every railroad merger in this country. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal standards histori- cally and currently applied to considering the competitive impacts of rail consolidations in conjunction with the goals of the legislation relating to Conrail. With that perspective, a viewpoint will be offered as to whether the competitive effects of the proposed sale have been addressed in a manner consistent with those standards and goals. II. PRESERVATION OF RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AS A CONSIDERATION IN RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS A. Prior to 1920 Prior to the enactment in 1890 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, there were no federal limitations on mergers or other consolidations of compet- See Wall Street Journal, Aug. 8, 1985, at 22, col. 1. 2 Sale of Conrail:Hearings on S261-31.9 Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 323 (1985) (statement of Bruce B_ Wilson, Vice-Pres., Law, Consolidated Rail. Corp.). Youngstown Vindicator, Oct. 16, 1985, at 12, col. 1, (statement of Ill. Atty. Gen. Neil F. Hartigan). ' Sale of Conrail:Hearings on S261-31.9 Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,219-20 (1985) (statement of Hays T. Watkins, Bd. Chairman and Chief Exec. Officer of CSX Corp.). https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol34/iss3/6 2 1986] LOSS OF RAIL COMPETITION ing railroads.5 A Jay Gould or Daniel Drew, if he worried about laws at all, could limit his concern to state corporate law and any state regulatory law which might apply to the particular transaction involved. While the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act) preceded the Sherman Act by three years, its original provisions did not address consolidations other than "pooling" between different carriers. 6 The Act was primarily directed, from the shippers' point of view, to eliminating rebates, and, from the carriers' point of view, to achieving some modicum of rate stability in an industry then afflicted with a tremendous increase in capacity without a corresponding increase in business.7 The railroads had not reached the stage in their development where consolidation was viewed as the solution of choice for their problems. Rather, the railroads had looked primarily to rate agreements and, prior to 1887, the outright allocation of revenues and traffic among competing carriers, the "pool," for relief.8 Several years after the passage of the Act, however, a major rail consolidation movement took root. Problems such as the railroads' inability to stabilize rates at profitable levels or to slow reckless expan- sion of lines through provisions of the Act, rate agreements or legalized pools, as well as problems in the economy (e.g., the Depression of 1893), prompted calls for consolidation of the various lines.9 This movement collided with the new national policy of enhancing economic efficiency by protecting and promoting competition, which was promulgated in the Sherman Act. The first major rail unification challenged under the Sherman Act was the attempt by the J.P. Morgan-James J. Hill-controlled Northern Securities Company to acquire the stock of the Great Northern Railway (GN) and Northern Pacific Railway (NP). This second attempt to amal- gamate these competing rail lines failed when the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decree declaring the consolidation a "combination in restraint of interstate and international commerce" and therefore ' Cf. G. KOLKO, RAILROADS AND REGULATION 1877-1916 14 (1965). 6 Interstate Commerce Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379. Pooling, much to the chagrin of the railroads, was prohibited by the Act. Id. at § 5 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 11342). 7 G. KOLKO, supra note 5, at 7-44. 8 Id. at 17-19. v Aldace Walker in 1890 and Collis P, Huntington in 1891 urged rail managers to consolidate in the interest of ending anarchy. Id. at 64. Following the Depression of 1893 and the reorganization of many railroads, J.P. Morgan took the lead in acquiring control of, although not necessarily consolidating, a large number of carriers, including the Erie, Reading, Jersey Central, Lehigh Valley, Delaware & Hudson, Northern Pacific, Southern, and New Haven. Id. at 65-66. These developments did not achieve the desired result as rates declined drastically during the 1890's, from 94o per ton mile to 73v per ton mile. Id. at 66. Published by EngagedScholarship@CSU, 1986 3 CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34:413 prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Act.1 The compeIc ive analysis by the Court was primitive by today's standards; the Court simply found that GN and NP were "competing and substantially parallel lines from the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound"i" and that [ilf such combination be not destroyed, all tk advantages that would naturally come to the public under the op-ration of the general laws of competition, or between the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies, will be lost, and the entire commerce of the immense territory in the northern part of the United States between the Great Lakes and the Pacific at Puget Sound will be at the mercy of a single holding corporation. .12
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Vegan Climate
    US Vegan Climate ETF Schedule of Investments April 30, 2021 (Unaudited) Shares Security Description Value COMMON STOCKS - 99.4% Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services - 13.4% 1,675 Accenture plc - Class A $ 485,700 233 Allegion plc 31,311 107 Booking Holdings, Inc. (a) 263,870 293 Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. 46,479 317 Equifax, Inc. 72,666 352 Expedia Group, Inc. 62,033 70 Fair Isaac Corporation (a) 36,499 729 Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 33,257 214 FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (a) 61,572 782 Global Payments, Inc. 167,841 961 IHS Markit, Ltd. 103,384 5,607 Mastercard, Inc. - Class A 2,142,210 425 Moody's Corporation 138,852 212 MSCI, Inc. 102,983 3,091 PayPal Holdings, Inc. (a) 810,738 491 TransUnion 51,354 8,745 Visa, Inc. - Class A 2,042,482 6,653,231 Construction - 0.9% 890 DR Horton, Inc. 87,478 1,956 Johnson Controls International plc 121,937 705 Lennar Corporation - Class A 73,038 19 NVR, Inc. (a) 95,344 682 PulteGroup, Inc. 40,320 396 Sunrun, Inc. (a) 19,404 437,521 Finance and Insurance - 14.1% 1,735 Aflac, Inc. 93,222 40 Alleghany Corporation (a) 27,159 797 Allstate Corporation 101,060 969 Ally Financial, Inc. 49,855 1,588 American Express Company 243,520 2,276 American International Group, Inc. 110,272 314 Ameriprise Financial, Inc. 81,138 657 Anthem, Inc. 249,259 596 Aon plc - Class A 149,858 1,025 Arch Capital Group, Ltd. (a) 40,703 496 Arthur J.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside the Interlocking Tower, with the Station Behind the Photographer
    NEXT MEETING: May 21 VIRTUAL MEETING Check your email for an invitation VOL. 63 NO. 5 MAY 2020 A Lehigh Valley passenger train coming off the Hemlock Branch and arriving at Rochester Jct., sometime in the 1930s. This view looks east from inside the interlocking tower, with the station behind the photographer. The branch to Rochester also connected here. This self-propelled gas-electric motorcar is towing an unpowered coach trailer, common for branch lines without a lot of traffic. The last regular Hemlock Branch passenger service to Lima was discontinued on August 9, 1937. Photographer and date unknown. COURTESY ANTHRACITE RAILROADS HISTORICAL SOCIETY We Will Return As the calendar flips over to May, our awnings for the windows. Our Fairbanks- museum remains closed to the public as Morse diesel is being prepared for service. we await guidance from our state and local On the equipment side, our new governments on when it will be safe to Shuttlewagon SX430 car mover was reopen. It’s very unusual for the museum delivered at the end of April, acquired from campus to be devoid of regular activity at RED Rochester at Kodak Park. Our two INSIDE this time, but we must do everything we RG&E bucket trucks were sold, and a newer can to keep safe and reduce the rate of truck was acquired in its place. Repairs to infection. our Jackson Tamper are continuing as well. New Shuttlewagon ...3 Museum volunteers have not been As soon as we receive clear guidance, we entirely idle during this time, however. will announce our revised 2020 schedule Lehigh Valley ........4 Small individual project work has continued of events at the museum.
    [Show full text]
  • Loss of Rail Competition As an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern Or Political Bogeyman
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 34 Issue 3 Article 6 1986 Loss of Rail Competition as an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern or Political Bogeyman Mark D. Perreault Nancy S. Fleischman Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Mark D. Perreault & Nancy S. Fleischman, Loss of Rail Competition as an Issue in the Proposed Sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern: Valid Concern or Political Bogeyman, 34 Clev. St. L. Rev. 413 (1985-1986) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOSS OF RAIL COMPETITION AS AN ISSUE IN THE PROPOSED SALE OF CONRAIL TO NORFOLK SOUTHERN: VALID CONCERN OR POLITICAL BOGEYMAN? MARK D. PERREAULT* NANCY S. FLEISCHMAN** 1. INTRODUCTION ......... ..................................... 414 II. PRESERVATION OF RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AS A CONSIDERATION IN RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS ............................... 414 A . Prior to 1920 ................................. 414 B . 1920 - 1940 .................................. 418 C. 1940 - 1980 .................................. 421 D . 1980 - Present ................................ 425 Ill. PRESERVATION OF RAIL-RAIL COMPETITION AS A CONSIDERATION IN THE FORMATION OF CONRAIL AND SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION TO SELL CONRAIL ........ ........................................ 428 A. 1970's Congressional Response to the Penn Central and Other Railroad Bankruptcies ..................... 428 B. Foundation of Initial CongressionalPolicy ........... 429 C. Implementing the Policy ......................... 432 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington, Saturday, August 14, 1937
    FEDERAL REGISTER \ VOLUME 2 1934 NUMBER 157 C ^A/ITEO ^ Washington, Saturday, August 14, 1937 TREASURY DEPARTMENT. plemental oral presentation of views shall be submitted to the Committee for Reciprocity Information not later than twelve Bureau of Customs. o ’clock noon, May 3, 1937. They should be addressed to “Acting rrhairma.n, Committee for Reciprocity Information, Old Land Office [T. D. 49109] Building, 8th and E Streets, Northwest, Washington, D. C.” Sup­ F oreign-T rade Agreements plemental oral statements will be heard at a public hearing be­ ginning at ten o’clock a. m., on May 17, 1937, before the Commit­ PUBLIC NOTICE OP INTENTION TO NEGOTIATE A FOREIGN-TRADE tee for Reciprocity Information, in the hearing room of the Tariff AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OP ECUADOR Commission in the Old Land Office Building. August 2, 1937. Form and Manner of Presentation To Whom It May Concern: The Committee for Reciprocity Information has prescribed the Pursuant to section 4 of the act of Congress approved June following regulations governing the submission of written and 12, 1934, and extended on March 1, 1937, entitled “An Act oral statements: Written statements must be either typewritten or printed. to Amend the Tariff Act of 1930” and Executive Order No. They must be submitted in sextuplícate and at least one copy 6750 of June 27, 1934, the Secretary of State on April 5, must be sworn to. Such statements will be treated as confiden­ 1937, gave formal notice of intention to negotiate a foreign- tial, for the use only of the Interdepartmental trade agreements trade agreement with the Government of Ecuador.
    [Show full text]
  • SEC News Digest, 07-16-1970
    ECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION J!~~ IDU@rn~1r • • brief summary of financial proposals filed with and actions by the S.E.C. COJ\1Miss(t Washington, D.C. 20549 ( In ord.ring full ,.,,' of Releaaes from SEC Publications Unit cite number) (Ias. Ro. 70-137) FOR RELEASE _---:;;J.;:;u""'ly<......:l.=..6.....-=l:..:;.9.:..;70~_ COMMISSION ANNOlJNCEKENT NYSE REPORT ON !fEW RAT! SCHEDULE. The SEC announced today that it will make available for public ex.. lnation the report submitted to it by the New York Stock Exchange containing a commisaion rate proposal and analysis for the determination of proposed rate levels. The submiasion consista of a "Report on the New ec..i.aion bte Schedule" prepared by the Committee on Member Firm Costs and Revenues of the New York ~tock Exchange and a two volume report prepared by National Economic Research Aaaociation, Inc. entitled Stock"Brokerage C~i .. ions: The Development and Application of Standards of Reaaonableneas for Public aet.s. Copies of the reports will be made available for examination at the Commission'a officea. Requests for obtaining copies of the reports should be directed to the Secretary of the New York Stock Exchange et 11 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. 10005. As indicated in Exchange Act Releaae No. 8924, the Commis.ion invites interested persons, including the other exchsnges, to submit their views on the proposed new minbDum commission rates of the New York Stock Exchange and requests any persons who may wiah to preseut teatimony to file appropriate summaries of their presentations with the Secretary of the Commisaion 500 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 4847 the Chief Clerk Read the Nomination of John Bright Hill Mr
    1933 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 4847 The Chief Clerk read the nomination of John Bright Hill Mr. GREEN, Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose at a later to be collector, customs collection district no. 15, Wilming .. date to speak on the subject of the canal across Florida, but ton, N.C. this morning I ask unanimous consent to extend my re­ The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the nomina .. marks and present therein a memorial from my legislature tion is confirmed. to the Congress. The Chief Clerk read the nomination of James J. Connors The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the to be collector, customs collection district no. 31, Juneau, gentleman from Florida? Alaska. There was no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the nomina.. Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the canal tion 1s confirmed. aero~ north Florida is the most important waterway which DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR has been suggested since the construction of the Panama The Chief Clerk read the nomination of William Zimmer­ Canal. It, we believe, will handle as much or probably more tonnage than is handled by the Panama Canal and will re .. man, Jr., of Illinois, to be Assistant Commissioner of Indian dound greater benefits to the American people. Affairs. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the nomina­ The proposed canal acl'oss north Florida is by no means a local project, but is decidedly a national project and will tion is confirmed. benefit every one of the States of the Union and all citizens That completes the calendar. therein. RECESS This project has been a dream of several generations, but Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • ALLEGHANY CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 51-0283071 (State Or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K ¥ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 OR n TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-9371 ALLEGHANY CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 51-0283071 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification Number) 7 Times Square Tower, 10036 New York, New York (Zip Code) (Address of principal executive offices) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 212/752-1356 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered Common Stock, $1.00 par value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Not applicable Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¥ No n Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes n No ¥ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • ALLEGHANY CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 or ¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-9371 ALLEGHANY CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 51-0283071 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification Number) 7 Times Square Tower, New York, New York 10036 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 212-752-1356 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of Each Exchange Title of Each Class on Which Registered Common Stock, $1.00 par value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Not applicable Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ¨ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Records Subseries 1—Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad
    The John W. Barriger III Papers- Series 1- Corporate Records Subseries 1—Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company Subseries 2—Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Company Subseries 3—Alabama Great Southern Railroad Subseries 4—Alabama, Tennessee & Northern Railroad Subseries 5—Alaska Railroad Subseries 6—Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Railway Company Subseries 7—Alleghany Corporation Subseries 8—Alton and Southern Railroad Subseries 9—Alton Railroad Company Subseries 10—American Railroad Company of Porto Rico Subseries 11—Amoskeag Company Subseries 12—Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) Subseries 13—Ann Arbor Railroad Company Subseries 14—Apache Railway Company Subseries 15—Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway Company Subseries 16—Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Subseries 17—Atlanta & St. Andrew’s Bay Railway Subseries 18—Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company Subseries 19—Atlanta, Birmingham and Coast Railroad Company Subseries 20—Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad Subseries 21—Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Subseries 22—Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Subseries 23—Baltimore & Sparrows Point Railroad Subseries 24—Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Subseries 25—Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Subseries 26—Bangor Punta Subseries 27—Barnegat Railroad Company Subseries 28—Beech Creek Railroad Company Subseries 29—Bellefonte Central Railroad Company Subseries 30—Belt Railway Company of Chicago Subseries 31—Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company Big Four Route—see Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Subseries 32—Bingham and
    [Show full text]
  • SEC News Digest, 05-05-1982
    _________________ ==U.:.!.S>!.!.C-.lo!S:"'E.\oIC"-lll~R>.LITLJII.I:.E.:;S__AA.AlN.g.D • ._. __ ... _ •. _ EXCHANGE COMMISSION CMl PROCEEDINGS -------~------------------_. __ ._._-- -------- STEVEN R. GRAYSON PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED The Los Angeles Regional Office announced that on April 26 the Honorable Cynthia H. Hall, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, issued a prelimi- nary injunction against Steven R. Grayson which, among other things, prohibits him from committiRg further violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, and transferring or dissipating assets while the Court's Order is in effect. The Court found that Grayson, a municipal securities salesman, had violated Section 17(a) (1) and (2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section lOeb) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-S thereunder, in connection with the offer and sale of municipal bonds. Specifically, the Court found that Grayson had obtained from his employer $150,000 worth of municipal bearer bonds through a fraudulent representation that he planned to deliver them to a customer. In fact, Grayson neither delivered the bonds to the customer nor returned them to the firm. In addition, the court found that Grayson had induced his retail customers to turn over to him at least $1.6 million worth of municipal bearer bonds on the represen- tation that he would upgrade the bonds and return them to the customers. Instead, the bonds were sold through a nominee account and neither the proceeds of the sales nor any new bonds were returned to the customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Alleghany Corporation
    ALLEGHANY CORP /DE FORM 10-Q (Quarterly Report) Filed 05/07/07 for the Period Ending 03/31/07 Address 7 TIMES SQUARE TOWER 17TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10036 Telephone 212-752-1356 CIK 0000775368 Symbol Y SIC Code 6331 - Fire, Marine, and Casualty Insurance Industry Insurance (Prop. & Casualty) Sector Financial Fiscal Year 12/31 http://www.edgar-online.com © Copyright 2014, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use. ALLEGHANY CORP /DE FORM 10-Q (Quarterly Report) Filed 5/7/2007 For Period Ending 3/31/2007 Address 375 PARK AVENUE SUITE 3201 NEW YORK, New York 10152 Telephone 212-752-1356 CIK 0000775368 Industry Conglomerates Sector Conglomerates Fiscal Year 12/31 Table of Contents SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (MARK ONE) QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2007 TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD ENDING COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 1-9371 ALLEGHANY CORPORATION EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER DELAWARE STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION 51-0283071 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 7 TIMES SQUARE TOWER, 17TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10036 ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE, INCLUDING ZIP CODE 212-752-1356 REGISTRANT’S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE NOT APPLICABLE FORMER NAME, FORMER ADDRESS, AND FORMER FISCAL YEAR, IF CHANGED SINCE LAST REPORT INDICATE BY CHECK MARK WHETHER THE REGISTRANT (1) HAS FILED ALL REPORTS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 DURING THE PRECEDING 12 MONTHS (OR FOR SUCH SHORTER PERIOD THAT THE REGISTRANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE SUCH REPORTS), AND (2) HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO SUCH FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PAST 90 DAYS.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review of Icc Security Authorizations: the Relevance of Unapproved Control*
    JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ICC SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS: THE RELEVANCE OF UNAPPROVED CONTROL* SECTION 20a of the Interstate Commerce Act empowers the ICC to au- thorize stock issues considered compatible with the public interest.' While the statutory standards reflect a predominant congressional intent that the 2 Commission judge a financing's effect on the service offered by the carrier, courts have recognized a co-ordinate duty to protect investors.3 Since the Commission must thus discharge a dual obligation, factors inappropriate in agency proceedings designed primarily to safeguard investors are germane to *Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co., 26 U.S.L. WEEK 41,16 (U.S. Jan. 27, 1958). 1. 41 STAT. 494 (1920), as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 20a (1952). The Commission may authorize a carrier stock issue under § 20a if it finds that such issue "is for some lawful object within its corporate purposes, and compatible with the public interest, which is necessary or appropriate for or consistent with the proper performance by the carrier of service to the public as a common carrier, and which will not impair its ability to per- form that service, and . is reasonably necessary and appropriate for such purpose." Section 20a and all other sections of the Interstate Commerce Act are to be administered in a manner best implementing the national transportation policy: ". to provide for fair and impartial regulation of all modes of transportation subject to the provisions of this Act, so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each; to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation among the several carriers .
    [Show full text]